By Ochus's strategical skill and politcal sagacity Egypt was a Persian
province once more. Diodorus (xvi. 51) may here be quoted:

Artaxerxes, after taking over all Egypt and demolishing the walls of the
most important cities, by plundering the shrines amassed a vast
quantity of silver and gold and carried off the inscribed records from
the ancient temples, which later on Bagoas returned to the Egyptian
priests on the payment of huge sums. Then when he had lavishly
rewarded the Greeks who had accompanies him on the campaign, each
according to his deserts, he dismissed them to their native lnds; and
having installed Pherendates as satrap of Egypt, he returned with his
army to Babylon, bearing many possessions and spoils and having won
great renown by his successes.

No doubt the hand of the conqueror lay heavy upon the conquered county,
and the lamentations of the First Intermediate Period are echoed in the
Demotic Chronicle. But there is no reason to believe the later writers who
attribute to Ochus the same sort of sacrileges as had been attributed to
Cambyses. The later Persian monarch was surely too wise for that.
Nevertheless, the immense power and prestige which he had brought to
his empire was not destined to last long. In 338 BC, he was poisoned by
his intimate Bagoas and his youngest son Arses put in his place, only to be
murdered by the same hand two years later. Arses was then replaced by a
collateral Darius III Codomannus, the last of the Achaemenids, who
promptly poisoned Bagoas, that masterful villain meeting with a
well-deserved fate. With Darius III ended the THIRTY-FIRST
DYNASTY which later chronographers added to Manetho's thirty.
Nominally his reign in Egypt lasted for four years, but before the
termination of these the Persian Empire was no more, and the ancient
world had started upon an entirely new era. Theoretically, this
information was aimed at basing its presentation of Egyptian history
solely upon the native sources. However, the information discussed here
has demonstrated the impossibility of such an undertaking. Not only has
our narrative here been mainly concerned with happenings in the Delta,
from where hieroglyphic inscriptions of interest are exceedingly rare, but
also the cuneiform inscriptions which have been quoted are always dry
annalistic statements of fact. On the other hand, our Greek testimony,
though not eschewing colorful description where that seemed pertinent,
has invariably been the work of sober professional historians. Projecting
this state of affairs backwards, we can now better appreciate how
one-sided our knowledge of the earlier periods must necessarily be. It is
true that the age of Persian domination is not wholly lacking in historical
information of a sort, but a couple of examples will illustrate the
difficulties encountered in our attempts to utilize them. A stele preserved
in Naples, but originally found at Pompeii, contains the 'biography' of a
Samtowetefnakhte. He held important priestly offices in the XVIth nome
of Upper Egypt. His name and the prayers which he addresses to
Arsaphes, the ram-headed deity of Heracleopolis, show him to have
belonged to a family mentioned several times already. In the following
excerpt he is speaking to his god:

I am thy servant and my heart is loyal to thee. I filled my heart with
thee and did not cultivate any town except thy town. I refrained not
from exalting it to everyone, my heart seeking after right in thy house
both day and night. Thou didst unto me things better than it a million
times. Thou enlargedst my steps in the palace, the heart of the goodly
god being pleased with what I said. Thou didst raise me out of millions
when thou turnedst thy back to Egypt and placedst the love of me in the
heart of the Prince of Asia, his courtiers thanking god for me. He made
for me the post of overseer of the priest of Sakhme (i.e. as physician) in
place of my mother's brother the overseer of the priests of Sakhme for
Upper and Lower Egypt Nekhtheneb. Thou didst protect me in the
fighting of the Greeks when thou repelledst Asia and they slew millions
beside me, and none raised his arm against me. My eyes followed Thy
Majesty in my sleep, thou saying to me 'Hie thee to Heracleopolis,
behold I am with thee'. I traversed foreign countries alone and I
crossed the sea and feared not, remembering thee. I disobeyed not what
thou saidst and I reached Heracleopolis and not a hair was taken from
my head.

This narrative illustrates once again the high repute in which Egyptian
physicians were held, but loses half its value because there is no certain
indication of a date. Scholars have differed upon this point, Erman arguing
in favor of the time of Marathon, whereas Tresson, the last editor,
identifies the battle between Greeks and Persians as that won by
Alexander at Gaugamela. These are extreme differences, but there are
others; between them it is impossible to decide. Another distorted
problem is raised by a certain Khababash who assumed the title of a
Pharaoh. An Apis sarcophagus of his second year is known, and the
marriage contract of a petty Theban priest is dated in his first year. More
interesting, however, is the information about him disclosed by a stele of
311 BC, when the later Ptolemy I Soter was as yet only the satrap of
Egypt. In form, this inscription is a eulogy of Ptolemy's great
achievements. Its evident purpose was to record his restitution to the
priests of Buto of a tract of country which, after having belonged to them
from time immemorial, had been taken from them by Xerxes, who is
described as an enemy and malefactor. Khababash, having listened to the
priests' plea and having been reminded that the god Horus had expelled
Xerxes and his son from Egypt by way of punishment, granted the petition,
as was likewise done later by Ptolemy. There are here two clues to the
historical position of Khababash: first he was clearly posterior to Xerxes,
and secondly he is said to have made his decision after having explored
the Delta mouths through which the 'Asiatics', i.e. the Persians, might be
expected to attack Egypt. There is a third clue, in fact, that the
abovementioned marriage contract was signed by the same notary as
signed another document of 324 BC. Various theories have been
advanced, but all that can be safely said is that Khababash was one of the
latest, if not the very latest, of the non-Persian and non-Greek rulers who
dared to assume the titulary of a native-born Pharaoh; but his name is
quite outlandish.